That is very pleasing! Ramachandran vindicated yet again..
Eleanor
On 2 October 2017 at 10:31, Meytal Galilee wrote:
> Dear all,
> Many thanks for your responses.
> Indeed the peptide was wrong handed, flipping the peptide chain fixed all
> my outliers issues!
> Thanks again!
> Meytal
>
> 2017-1
Dear all,
Many thanks for your responses.
Indeed the peptide was wrong handed, flipping the peptide chain fixed all
my outliers issues!
Thanks again!
Meytal
2017-10-01 23:12 GMT+03:00 Eleanor Dodson :
> That seems strange! You couldn't have built it in the wrong direction
> could you?
>
> Or have
That seems strange! You couldn't have built it in the wrong direction could
you?
Or have bound a L-handed peptide?
There are outliers which can be explained by interactions with other
features but it would be very very unlikely that all the residues were
outliers
Eleanor
On 1 October 2017 at
Hi,
Bond length and angle targets are defined based on the local
chemistry and apply equally to small and large molecules. The
Ramachandran distributions were defined via an examination of,
basically, tripeptides. Your peptide model must be consistent with
these prior observations to be consi
Hi All,
I have solved a structure of a protein bound to a short peptide (11
residues) at 1.9A.
The peptide fits the map perfectly, however, all of its residues are
either Ramachandran / bond length / angle outliers.
Fixing any of these issues forces the peptide to misfit the map
dramatically.
Is a
